Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
with our foreign policy, there is no substitute for having the secretary of state develop personal relationships and get a direct feel from the people that she is trying to deal with and trying to move towards an american position, whatever that may be, so i don't think you can do it. i don't think you can send a substitute. it just goes with the territory. the secretary of state has to be prepared to travel all around the world. those personal relationships are critical for the ability of the united states to bring people along with her. >> she stands alone. no other secretary of state has ever traveled that much. they've never been away that much. >> maybe not that much, but secretaries of state have been traveling a heck of a lot more over the last few years. >> are you saying she has redefined the secretary of state position and role? >> no, no, no. >> i think what she does is a part and has been a part of the secretary of state role -- >> i bet they haven't even traveled a quarter of the miles. >> john, you ought to have somebody there -- >> she surpassed a predecessor, i thi
way to do this is to take the issues on foreign policy that most of the times the public does not care. i would love to see the speech where hillary clinton, a nobel prize speech where she does promote these values. war is not good for women. >> that is my point. it is such an oxymoron. >> they are the biggest victims in these conflicts. it disturbs me when i hear these political leaders talking about the use of violence in such a casual way, which they all do, but in iraq and iran, we are going to obliterate them. who are we obliterate thing? when we think about war we often think about american soldiers being killed. they are, and that is horrible and tragic, but for most people the experience of war is to be huddled inside your home with the bombs dropped outside. it is your kids finding a dead body. most people who experience war experience is through the lens of a civilian. >> how is the guy who is so much less hawkish than the people he covers and the issues of the war he deals with, how you keep that imbalance? >> i had a number of drunken conversations with most of the white ho
against foreign persons, i think, is troubling from a moral, ethical, and policy point of view. but i don't subscribe to the fact that it's illegal under u.s. law. and that's the law that the president is bound by the constitution to follow. my focus has been primarily, and i'm not saying it's a good program. i'm just saying that i think it's a moral policy question rather than a legal one primarily for the president. i focus primarily on the targeted killing of american citizens, which does bring into play the united states constitution and the rule of law in the united states. and i'm very troubled about that aspect of it. >> can you help us understand how this official program of targeted killing works? >> apparently, the agencies, primarily the pentagon and the c.i.a. nominate people to be on the list. and it goes through what the white house promises is a very rigorous process of review to determine if those people should or should not be on the list. we don't know exactly what the standard is. but it involves a number of criteria, including whether the host country, the country in w
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)